Ninth Circuit Denies Voting Rights To Prisoners

It was announced in the mainstream media that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco overturned a prior panel ruling (?) which had found the State of Washington's prohibition banning voting by felons unconstitutional.

The case apparently was grounded and brought as a "racial discrimination" case, however, and the basis for the decision appears politics also just may have been a factor in this recent ruling.

After all, with the exception of two states in the nation all have some provisions barring convicted felons from the election process. Some more stringent than others, and even a few that actually prohibit felons from voting for life (forget "letting the punishment fit the crime," or after the punishment has been handed down and fulfilled "records" being then wiped clean upon petition for felons, and automatically for misdemeanor offenses).

Seems to me maybe the lawyers for the case might have missed using that other Constitutional provision, the "privileges and immunities clause," that also might have been another legal avenue to travel. I mean, two states do not remove voting rights for felons, so aren't those prisoners getting a "privilege" that those prisoners in other states do not, since the buzz words also being used by the spin doctors on this one is that voting is a "privilege" in this country, and not a "right?"

Huh?

In a government of the people, by the people, for the people it most certainly is a "right" in this writer's view, but then we have also quite clearly lost any measure of having a representative government due to just such wacko court decisions as these, as of late, all the way to the top branch in that last Citizens United "corporate" case brought by a somewhat "commercial" entity, or perhaps dare I say, federally funded through its "educational" focus?

I mean, foreigners now are exerting their influence in the hallowed halls of Washington more and more, both through their lobbying efforts and also through their campaign donations to those "bundlers."

The court also cited a "precedence" from an 1886 case, and strange that this "progressively liberal" court would hold with a case while bypassing the intent of the founders and their reverence for just what type of government they were creating, and which actually had to do more so with capital offenses in which jury trials actually were given in those days, and cases were not plea bargained, or those jailhouse appeals denied as regularly as they appear to be more and more then thereafter.

Many times, for budgetary reasons.

I wonder if Washington State has privatized its state jails as Arizona has?

I mean, the fewer inmates, the less those Wall Street penal conglomerates get for their budgets and shareholders, and the less the states also get from the federal government in order to also run some of those state prisons. This is, after all, another emerging industry creating all those jobs for those homeland security graduates and ex-military primarily.

Is it any wonder that more and more of those pro se jailhouse appeals are getting either denied, or "lost," as was the case in Louisiana several years ago in a published article which was written after a Clerk of the Court committed suicide presumably due to his guilt over having been a participant in such a court process for at least a decade.

And while Arizona's prisons have been privatized right and left supposedly due to "budgetary" constraints, I just wonder where all those monies also are coming from in order to upgrade and build all those new jails especially with the budget being of such major concerns to a great many states these past five years, while the most monies that went in that stimulus actually did go to the states for such purposes. I guess this is another "outsourcing" of governmental powers and duties to private industry in these now "commercial" prisons once again that will have their bottom line profits most in mind in running them, and with little state oversight whatsoever as was recently in the headlines.

I mean in this "ends justifies the means" style governing now on every level, the more and more that minor offenses are criminalized which don't involve loss of property or injury, the more "jobs" it creates, and dividends for those shareholders who are invested in those commercial ventures at this point.

This is the mentality that seems to be running rampant at the city, county, state and federal levels more and more.

Just think how much crime stimulates the economy, and creates jobs. Construction jobs, security and prison guards for the returning military and homeland security grads, the "tech" industry for all those cameras and surveillance devices, identity theft protection companies and jobs, insurance company profits for expanded coverages then needed on homeowners and auto insurance due to the rising auto theft rates in most state throughout the nation - why it does appear that it is a major stimulus for quite a few sectors of Wall Street.

In fact, if there wasn't crime at all, just think how many more would be lining up at the social service offices right now.

Maybe that is also a factor in this economic depression.

The need for more criminals in order to stimulute also the global economy, Wall Street, and the U.S. economy - after a theft, you have to go out and buy something to replace what was taken, after satsifying that deductible, that is. After your car is stolen or broken into, you need to satsify that deductible when making those repairs, or buying tha new (or used) car to replace it.

Maybe this is why more and more in local communities there are no neighborhood patrols really much anymore in residential communities, since that would affect and impact the economy and jobs of those private security companies too, although they have no real legal authority to do anything really other than place a call to the local police force if the worst should happen and there should be a property crime in their jurisdiction.

It just might not be the budget at all If there were regular neighborhood patrols once again there just might be less crime, maybe, and thus less jobs and profits for those on the "crime does pay" gravy train. Or if the economy actually did improve significantly.

But with lesser offenses, this country IS supposed to be the "land of the free" - so just why has there been such a progressive move to criminalize more and more petty offenses, offenses in which there is no direct victim such as many of those minor "possession" charges on marijuana use, not sale, and others. You can spend jail time even for misdemeanor offenses at this point in most states throughout the nation.

Many of the even public misdemeanor jails are charging inmates for their own meals, or confiscating their wages then from any work they do for the "privatized" jailhouse general stores upon their return. I mean being in jail itself, deprived of your freedom and separated from society for your crime, was SUPPOSED to be THE punishment for major offenses.

Those incarcerated, especially those felonies not involving harm or injury to another, are or were taxpayers - but it appears when handing down their double, triple and even quadruple penalties for even minor felony offenses, the states are forgetting the common law provisions on civil and criminal crimes in this country. And most aren't even "convicted" but are plea bargained also for "budgetary" needs by those public defenders.

Letting the punishment fit the crime has been lost in the process. And even giving those juries the instructions that they also have not only the duty to hand down their verdict on the evidence presented, but also the duty to examine the law and punishments attached by statute also as to legality in their view as representatives of "the people," and not "the state."

Although even obtaining a jury of your peers is almost impossible, since juries are now profiled by the lawyers involved, or are comprised of citizens that truly are not "peers" of the defendant at all - many of whom are themselves city, state, county or federal workers who are paid from some of those fines and fees attached to those crimes - especially the minor offenses.

And yet, there is a concerted move also progressively to continue to attempt to remove trials by jury for more and more offenses even. With the state acting as both the charging party, and jury in more and more "bench" trials for misdemeanor criminal offenses, and with even traffic fines at all time highs requiring most to enter into "payment plans" at added costs even over and above those fines, which should be a clue right there as to the levels at which they are now set. The very definition of fascism, actually.

So how is removal of voting privileges in any manner letting the punishment fit the crime, unless it truly is the highest offense within our Constitution.

High treason.

I mean spies, and those in high political office should not be afforded that "right" when by their actions they have shown that it is not this country or its Constitution which guides their actions, or to whom they owe their fealty.

I wonder, just how many in Washington that are highly publicized casting their votes even while running for office, should have their ballots challenged?

Maybe what we need at this point is a recount ever decade, rather than a census.

I just wonder how many "foreigners" and "party politicians, including those "mavericks" of both mainstream political parties whose political leanings have nothing to do with Constitutional government, votes would then be thrown out.

Another ruling by the Ninth that appears to be following British law at the time of the American Revolution contrary to those Bill of Rights primarily and fundamentally, and not U.S. true law at all, as this ruling to this writer flies in the face of the entire intent of America's founders in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Weighed against the increasing access to the U.S. Courts by foreign individuals for even prosecution matters not to mention their appeals paid for through Americans taxes for those numerous appeals before deportation for true capital offenses, who are not even American citizens, speaks volumes in just how far off this recent decision is as by this court especially, as opposed to Constitutional intent in the entire foundation of America's intended form of government.

Whose "prisoner" voices should be heard most of all really, as those who have been many times "politically" convicted due to "budgetary" restraints, or whose crimes have been criminalized which under the common law are merely civil crimes without a clear "victim" to begin with.

While those pardons are given to high level Wall Street officials whose "direct victims" were literally hundreds or thousands of individuals in property theft, rather than banning them from any further employment in the financial sector for at least a good many years, the pot smokers and low level DUI offenders under those three strike rules are banned from the political and voting process, or those plea bargained lower felony "civil" victimless offenders "for life" in a few states?

Or how about those foreign drug dealers and auto thieves who are peddling their wares to America's youth most of all or stealing cars cross borders, who then are afforded to gain "standing" somehow in the U.S. courts and turn around and sue for "emotional distress," as what occurred by at least one foreigner after having been shot in the rear by the American border patrol, to then profit from their crime?

San Francisco, your "heart" seems to be misplaced, along with this Court's fundamental understanding of Constitutional government.